The Wright Brothers DID Invent the Airplane
Вставка
- Опубліковано 19 сер 2019
- This video is essentially my response to various others on youtube who claim that someone other than the Wright Brothers invented the airplane.
I specifically respond to Lindybeige, History Guy, and Real Engineering. All are good channels, and I especially enjoy Lindybeige and History Guy, but all three are wrong on this issue.
The comment section for this video is so vast that's it's tough to keep up with, so I can no longer respond to each. In order to simplify, if your comment indicates that you didn't even bother to watch the video before commenting, I'll just delete it.
As stated in the video, the sources I used are the Wright's journals and letters to their family members, mostly their sister Katherine. These can be found at no charge at the Library of Congress. www.loc.gov/collections/wilbu...
An easier alternative is to get a copy of "Kill Devil Hill" by Harry Combs. His book is basically a collection of the relevant journal entries and letters organized with commentary into a logical order. The Harry Combs book is outstanding.
The Official auto and Air Fan Store is Here!
gregs-airplanesandautomobiles...
I hope you enjoy the video. Please consider supporting this channel on Patreon: / gregsairplanesandautom... - Авто та транспорт
I will remove any comment from someone who obviously didn't watch the video.
I posted this 5 days ago, you did not reply, so I thought you were away, but I guess you are back now...
So, where is my $1,000 sir?
I edited my previous post a bit here and there now, as I am researching and learning more...
I am convinced the Wrights and Charlie (all three of them) went to Paris in 1907 to learn from French, how French aviators were building airplanes and controlling them, but that's the next subject, let's discuss who built the first powered heavier than air airplane first.
1. "the Dumont and Bleriot planes you mentioned were both designed well after the Wrights patent and all other info became public." What did Dumont and Bleriot's 1907 machines steal from Wright's 1906 patents? Their machines look nothing like Wright's planes, and they thought Wright brothers were liars, frauds. Why would they have bothered to even look at Wright's patent, while thinking Wrights were lying and their machine not flying at all?
2. Gustave Whitehead's 1901 flights were reported by many newspapers. Some reporters witnessed the flight in person. Did you read them? Are you dismissing the newspaper articles, directly witnessed by the reporters? Based on what? They are all in wiki page on Gustave Whitehead, so just go look at them.
3. One of the reports said Gustave flew 1/2 miles 50 ft max height. Can Gustave have flown 1/2 miles without solving adverse yaw problem? This is implicit, but obvious evidence that yaw problem was solved. They are well documented in the reference 17 of the wiki page, Sunday Herald, 8/18/1901. More articles about his flights are available in wiki page too. You owe me $1,000.
Did you watch AMERICAN xxxx MOON documentary? I will pay you $9,000 ($10,000 - $1,000 you owe me) if you find any flaw in their major claims. (Moon Rocks, LRRR, Van Allen belt, Photos, etc)
You sound like a tyrant; you could just ignore them
Edit; I look through the comment logs, and it really looks like you should pay the man
@@sbkarajan what the fuck are you smoking? And what the hell was that last paragraph?!
Don’t pls, it’s way funnier
You're video is great and I haven't seen any of it.
One "important" thing: they build an engine with aluminium, to save weight, but they paint it on black to confuse their competitors. Clever guys.
Ummm.....they painted it because that's what you do to avoid corrosion in salty atmospheres, and black because that's all bike makers had in stock back then. All that would make a difference if the aircraft were able to fly somewhere, or in a circuit rather than glide ( barely a few metres ) in stiff winds after being catapulted into the air. It didn't have enough forward speed to maintain flight, the engine was inadequate, so just call it a glider. An earlier inventor had used a steam engine, but that just glided too, for similar reasons.
There are many others with better planes with earlier and more realistic claims. Fortunately nobody cares, the aircraft of today owe little if anything to the many pioneers of the time. We don't use propellers, two wings, canards, launching ramps or wing-warping. We also don't fly in ground effect, we like to fly a lot higher than the Wrights.
If you want to laud anybody try Louis Bleriot who flew the English Channel, he actually got somewhere. In fact France was the primary mover at the time in all kinds of aviation, and remains so to this day - think supersonic transport, executive jets, light aircraft, fighters, mega-airliners, and, of course, vertical take-off jets which are the basis of US fleets. You may recall that extensive US research produced nothing that could compete with the P1127 Harrier, made in England to a pattern from France. The US bought lots.
But the Smithsonian would have you believe that the US was successful there too. Perhaps you also invented the Pyramids, who knows. Never mind, we'll continue to humour you.
Michael Powell
I agree with the video in the fact that the brothers were the first. The original comment i cant prove or disprove offhand. I cant refute the large efforts of the early 1900s of the French.
But to say that France was thee most successful to today is very wrong. The most successful that France has done in the post 1900s-1930s Is contributing with the British on Concorde and being apart of Arbus (Which i may add is in not just France but is multinational). The eurofighter made by France was a alright fighter when it was first produced and is now severely outdated.
Boeing and Lockheed Martin were and still are innovators in the aerospace field (737 Max aside, which was a software error). American fighter design has been incredibly advanced since the start of WW 2. F 35 is a heaping pile of shit as a fighter. That’s alright its a fight bomber designed to bomb targets and assist F 22 fighters in air combat.
@@bmpowellicio Did you agree with the narrator's initial definition of controlled flight and how he distinguished controlled flight from; in my words, a projectile with wings.
@@markharmon4963 Nope. You can use a narrow definition to suit any purpose. For example, hot air balloons have controls powered by combustion to rise and fall. That can easy be set as the benchmark for the earliest powered, controlled flight. They are also heavier than air until put into flying configuration, as so is a 747. So the first powered, controlled, heavier-than-air aircraft flight was performed by a balloon. QED.
@@bmpowellicio The Wrights didn't use a catapult in Kitty Hawk. Their longest flight with the Flyer was a minute long. They didn't even bother trying any higher altitudes or turning because they rapidly found the Flyer to be unstable and knew damn well they were standing at the bottom of a very steep learning curve. Just look at how flight testing of new designs is conducted today.
"There are many others with better planes with earlier and more realistic claims."
Earlier and more realistic claims to what? The first manned, powered, heavier than air flight? Hahaha, no. There are a lot of wild and discredited claims.
On Lilienthal - "He usually survived" 🤣🤣🤣
He did, his survive to not survive ratio was about 2000:1. Not bad for an aviation pioneer.
He only failed to survive one time
@@GregsAirplanesandAutomobiles He survived so many flights thanks in large part to nailing an aerodynamically stable design. He just took it too far on the day of the accident, flying on a day with strong thermals. The "glide ratio" of the Normalsegelapparat wasn't all that bad at 3,6 and especially considering it took more than 90 years before anybody build a safer and significantly higher performance glider that is controlled by shifting the pilots weight. The Wright brothers did give Lilienthal credit for his work and Wilbur Wright called him "...the greatest of the precursors."
He survived until he didn't.
@@GregsAirplanesandAutomobiles Still really funny the way you said it. I knew how that story was going to end.
The Wright brothers understood that a propeller is a rotating wing. That's one of their many achievements.
Magnar Nordal When I was at the Riddle, I was told that the vast majority of modern aeronautical engineering started with them and it’s only a fraction of a percent more accurate these days.
The twisted aerofoil shape of modern aircraft propellers was pioneered by the Wright brothers. While some earlier engineers had attempted to model air propellers on marine propellers, the Wrights realized that a propeller is essentially the same as a wing, and were able to use data from their earlier wind tunnel experiments on wings. They also introduced a twist along the length of the blades. This was necessary to ensure the angle of attack of the blades was kept relatively constant along their length. Their original propeller blades were only about 5% less efficient than the modern equivalent, some 100 years later. The understanding of low speed propeller aerodynamics was fairly complete by the 1920s, but later requirements to handle more power in smaller diameter have made the problem more complex.
Alberto Santos Dumont, another early pioneer, applied the knowledge he gained from experiences with airships to make a propeller with a steel shaft and aluminium blades for his 14 bis biplane. Some of his designs used a bent aluminium sheet for blades, thus creating an airfoil shape. They were heavily under-cambered, and this plus the absence of lengthwise twist made them less efficient than the Wright propellers. Even so, this was perhaps the first use of aluminium in the construction of an airscrew. REF: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Propeller
The 1909 French scimitar prop was about as efficient as the the Wright's. It is one of the features that made the Bleriot XI a success. Does anyone have more information on this. It appears to be an independent invention.
@ARQUEID SISTEMA Can you tell us anything more about the Santos Dumont HBO mini-series. I would like to watch it. This URL is little more than a trailer. It did not say anything about how Santos-Dumont developed his propellers.
(update) I have now seen two episodes.
@@stevebett4947 "This was necessary to ensure the angle of attack of the blades was kept relatively constant along their length." You might want to reword this, the angle of attack is continuously varied.
@@Jester123ish The pitch angle along the length of a propeller blade varies in order to keep the angle of attack (close to) constant. The pitch angle is measured with respect to the plane of the propeller disc. The angle of attack is measured relative to the direction of movement of the blade through the air, which varies along its length.
As an aerospace engineer and now amateur aviation historian myself, I can say this is an excellent review of many of the key points that made the Wrights successful, while others struggled. I have a few points to add:
- The Wrights often flew their man-carrying gliders on the NC Outer Banks as unmanned tethered, controlled kites. A photo you have at 17:07 shows this. They used spring scales to measure the pulling force, and a protractor to measure the angle of the control wires from the horizon, hence giving them the lift to drag for each configuration. I believe this was a first, also: the "scale-up" of their wind tunnel airfoil results to actual large wings, including the aspect ratio effects.
- You can see at 36:22 that Langley's propellers were not airfoil cross-section, but flat. There is one on display at the National Museum of the USAF in Dayton, Ohio and I can confirm that.
- Finally, a non-US citizen view worth reading was published by the British aviation historian Charles H. Gibbs-Smith (The Aeroplane, An Historical Survey of Its Origins and Development, Her Majesty's Stationary Office, London, 1960). He has extensive discussions of the Wrights; and I highly recommend this book. In it, he writes: "Wilbur and Orville Wright were the first men to make powered, sustained and controlled flights in an aeroplane, and land on ground as high that from which they took off. They were also the first to make and fly a fully practical powered aeroplane, one that could take off and land without damage to itself or its occupants, and could fly straight, turn, and perform circular flights with ease. Finally they were the first to make and fly a practical passenger-carrying aeroplane. The first of these achievements was brought about on December 17 1903; the second by the autumn of 1905; and the third in 1908. All these successes -- and more -- are fully documented and established, and are unequivocally accepted by all modern aeronautical historians. Beside these monumental achievements it is idle to place any other claims for prior flights in a powered aeroplane. Every claim to ante-date the Wright brothers depends, even if substantiated, on achievements of such miniscule significance when compared with what the Wrights accomplished that they can never possess more than academic interest: what is more, none of the activities which have been the subject of such claims has contributed to the advance of aviation."
I think you will like my latest video, I cover some of these same points.
@@GregsAirplanesandAutomobiles Thanks and subscribed!
I just recently found these really sound and interesting documentaries that Greg has made. He mentioned the Aerodrome..., and I wrote a response to a Langley supporter as first to fly, and this is part of it.
Because Langley and most everyone else were so ideologically possessed with the idea of inherent stability that aeronautical development hit a complete dead end. It was the wind tunnel data, along with the glider experiments of 1902 that made the Flyer possible and broke this log jam. All systems that current aircraft require for flight were present on the Wright Flyer..., and it was on this platform that modern aeronautics was established. That is why the Wright Flyer replaced the Langley Aerodrome at the Smithsonian.
As a fellow Aero Engineer and aviation enthusiast, I heartily concur!! Great post, and that is a great quote by Gibbs.
The video, you and many others making comments FAILED to look elsewhere deeper... to EUROPE at the time. Lots were happening over there too. @28:30 The AIRPLANE 14 BIS is not even mentioned!! Flown by Santos Dumont in 23 October 1906 !!
The atmospheric conditions at Kitty Hawk on 12-17-1903 are something I had never heard about before. This probably explains why the replica built for the 100th anniversary could not get off the ground.
I was thinking the same thing.
Yes, made the video well worth watching.
I agree. Density altitude, and the rest of the atmospheric conditions present at the time, is something no one ever discusses. Incredible to realize how much they actually understood.
@@JetFuelnSawDust They had a barometer. Measure air pressure, used to predict storms. Standard on ships.
I have a friend that was portraying Orville Wright at the 2003 centennial (had been the artist's model for the Dayton mural). He said the pilot who was to fly was absolutely terrified, watching the open valves and arcing motor run. He thinks the pilot steered off the treads it into the sand on purpose.
However being a wet air day...it may have been the pressure and the pilot felt no lift.
The Wright Brothers were classic "Design and Development Engineers". The fact that they were "bicycle mechanics" and came from relatively humble backgrounds to achieve more than anyone else did in that period makes them heroes to me.
I have seen film of Orville Wright flying in France and it is abundantly clear that they have achieved stable and well controllable flight and of I think 1 hr. duration. Theirs was a truly stunning achievement for the benefit of mankind.
You saw a LATER model, no one has flown the MK 1
That was in 1908, by this time there were better machines, incluiding the famous Dumont's "Demoiselle".
Gustave Whitehead flew 2 years before the Wright Brothers in Bridgeport Connecticut in 1901 in controlled flights, and may have flown as early as 1899. The eyewitnesses are enormous including newspaper accounts, and signed affidavits. I even spoke to the Whitehead family who still live in Connecticut and they confirm this. Not to mention the Bridgeport Connecticut Police logs about Whitehead flying overhead in his machine.
This video made me appreciate the Wright Bros even more.
The brothers took extreme dependence on winds. It wasn't an airplane!!
@@acucarchocolate3961 iT wAs NoT aN aIrPlAnE
Greg, thank you for this video. I was a professional pilot for forty years and a non-professional history buff for over sixty years. I enjoy both Lindybeige and The History Guy. I watch almost all of their work. The very few times I ever questioned their content concerned their videos on the Wright brother's flights. You have given voice to a bit of history that surprisingly was needed to be remembered.
Do you think they absolutely, categorically, used / needed Newtonian Mechanics?
@@wildboar7473 What?
@@Isegawa2001 Quoi?
Aeronautics was a totally new science the Wrights had to invent.
Newtonian mechanics are more than good enough., but pretty irrelevant.
One thing which might be worth noting: Even when you read something or watch a video where the contention of the author or presenter is not correct, you may learn facts of which you had been unaware. It all adds to the total picture. That is what I often find.
Would love to hear about Langley's $50,000 failure one day.
Check out David McCullough book on the Wright Brothers, very detailed and in depth. Talks all about Langley, Lyleanthal and others contemporaries. Audiobook is really good as well.
too many comfortable Brazilians thinking they invented it first 🤣
They're so overly confident in their view that Santos Dumont was first that they won't even discuss it and simply make some angry birds joke.
@@tangow371 have one vídeo réplica flying?
The French had the Salmson liquid cooled radial engine at the end of WW1. Also
Anthony Fokker idolized the Wright Brothers so much that he stuck with wing warping way longer than anyone else.
Anthony called his first plane the Mother Focker!
Fokker stuck with wing warping because it worked. The method ran out of usefulness as planes got bigger
I read the book by Platz. The Germans were eventually turning down his prototypes with wing warping and would only purchase them with ailerons.
Big deal, the Americans had the Liberty Engine made by Packard, Buick, Ford, and several others, they made thousands of them.
Greg was asking if there was ever a liquid cooled radial engine so I gave the only example I knew. I was not running down US World War I manufacturing.
Debate done right. Love it. This is civilized discourse and I learned something from it.
I agree. Everyone can learn from civilized discourse.
I heartily agree. See my reply to the contumelious Michael Powell in the thread begun by alvaroasi, topmost of comments above, if you like. All the best.
Pity about the pedants.
Like this video very much, and agree with its conclusions. Don't know if it qualifies as debate though. While much gentler than many I've seen (think of playing your "opponent"s argument while overlaying snide commentary), some formality is required (in my opinion) to qualify as "debate". That is, the subject and limitations are pre-defined, and there is opportunity afforded for rebuttal and provision of further evidence. It's best if the "debaters" are present at the same time. Without these things, it's simply a presentation of a case.
@@vitabricksnailslime8273 it really does boil down to how you define flight. It's semantics a lot of the time.. I think the brothers were the first to carry out a powered controlled flight. Also they flew in quite strong winds so the distance over the ground is misleading... they flew much further through the air. Much safer keeping the ground speed low in case of a mishap.
First rate review. They solved the engineering problems no one else even grasped. And they recorded it as they did it. And then they built an aircraft that worked consistently based upon the engineering principles which they had discovered for themselves.
And they were flying for years, before the competition. Years, not days, weeks or months.
Yes, and they patented all their stuff.
Who says you need a college education?
@@badcornflakes6374
You sort of do these days. Or at least, the equivalent of one. I just don't see someone without a college education taking a rocket to mars.
...and then they stopped innovating and started litigating. Their early work was exemplary. Wind tunnels! Then they became embarrassing.
@@vibratingstring That's garbage, Wilbur only lived until 1912, how much innovation do you expect from a guy who's dead? Orville sold the company to Martin for a million dollars in 1915 and they innovated if you know anything about birds.
Thank you for setting the record straight, what the Smithsonian Institute did was a scandal and not surprisingly the original Wright flyer was in the Science museum in London for many years until they came clean. The story of the Wright brothers is as extraordinary as it is inspiring .
Imagine two brotheres no prior experience learning everything they could and perfecting it to the point they help us understand the theory of flight. The perfect underdog story imho
Even more intriguing when you hear that Otto Lillianthal, Percy Pilcher, Gustave Whitehead and perhaps even Santos Dumont were just ahead of them. The first two with gliders, especially Lillianthal. The level of knowledge about aviation was everywhere. So it can be concluded that the greediness of the Wrights evidenced in the ensuing years could fulfil the notion of pigs having wings. Now waving the US flag.
You forgot to mention that Langley had a cousin who was head curator of the Smithsonian.
@@guywillson1549 Spot on!
ua-cam.com/video/TGom0uiW130/v-deo.html
I've also heard of claims that the Wright brothers weren't the first to build and fly an airplane. Your detailed description supporting the Wrights is excellent and makes a great deal of sense. I also enjoy your manner of tackling the issue, i.e. first defining an airplane flight.
Really enjoy your channel, thanks!
Greg, this is a well thought out presentation. I'm a 75 yo pilot -- was one of those who had flying dreams when I was 6 and was constantly looking skyward.. After an engineering degree I got serious enough to earn my pilots license. I also read and thought about the problems the early pioneers faced. I think that 3-axis control was the key that the Wright's solved -- especially roll. However, I'm not minimizing adverse-yaw and the mortal danger it presented.
I think the brothers' bicycle business gave them a unique perspective understanding the need for controlling roll. As late as the 1908 demonstrations in France other inventors were still using flat maneuvers to 'skid' thru a turn. And a lot of them crashed -- probably due to the adverse yaw that this uncoordinated turn forced on their aircraft. I think a lot of early inventors pictured that steering an airplane was like steering an automobile; not recognizing the need to bank the plane to balance the centrifugal and gravitational forces with the weight and direction (bank). It's a vector problem that you intuitively solve when you lean into a curve riding a bicycle...
Impressive and well documented video. Having pictures related during the video is helpful to contextualise everything. Really good work
you're adopted
ua-cam.com/video/frW7tgM2TVU/v-deo.html
I completely agree with you and thanks for making this video. I would only add that the author of one of the books I've read about the Wright brothers stated that they did not invent the airplane, they engineered it. They were classical engineers, even if not formally trained. They invented accurate test instruments, construction methods and recorded results. They understood the problems they had to solve. They had to do all their own basic research, and engineered the world's most efficient airfoil, the most efficient propeller, and understood the 3 axis control issues and solved them. Flying isn't hopping. You need: enough lift to get off the ground; Be able to carry a human being;, (no models or toys need apply) Have pitch, yaw and roll controls that worked reliably and effectively; Have enough power to continue flight under its own power. Others had achieved lift; not as efficiently but lift was done as the many "hops" of others had been demonstrated but nobody else solved all the problems. When they flew in France in 1908 flyers like Santos Dumont and Louis Bleriot, who were highly respected had to acknowledge the Wrights could LITERALLY fly circles around them. Even in 1908! But the Wrights spent the future years on patent protection efforts. Their fellow American Glen Curtis was a dishonest man, attempting to discredit the Wrights, and it was not right. Remember this: Catapult failures structural failures control failures power failures stability failures and CRASHES are failures. Everyone else disqualified themselves, especially the tandem winged Aerodrome that was not only unstable by its most fundamental design and for an accomplished man like Langley, surprisingly fragile. He should have done better, but the Wrights engineered their invention well, they did their homework while everyone else was failing with trial and error.
Very well said, that is the impression most other histories have given, but not spelled it out so clearly.
Well said,
I was sold on the Wright brothers when hearing they built their own wind tunnel and were able to measure lift and drag. This is pioneering technology the 'right' (Wright?) way !!
This I love. Inventing (ignoring my views on gliders as aeroplanes) was never really what they did, the concept was there for a long time. Engineering it however they absolutely smashed.
@@asharak84 werent you in another comment thread? You were having a debate with another dude. You never responded back to that dude
@@wrongway1100 Haha yeah I'm in a pointless internet debate in another thread. It's topic should stay there rather than pollute elsewhere I think as it's gone predictably. I can share my enthusiasm for their great Engineering elsewhere [here] :)
The Wrights invented the first heavier than air three axis controlled airplane that flew. Hidden in this is that they became the first true aeronautical engineers which they taught themselves. They did the math. They invented wind tunnel testing of airfoils. They invented the airfoil propeller. The math said their Flyer would fly. The math said they would need a strong headwind to get off the ground so they conducted their first experimental powered flights at Kill Devil Hills where they had already learned to fly three axis controlled gliders off the dunes. The math said their Flyer design would fly with three axis control and it did.
They needed more than a 20+ mph headwind. Fortunately they also picked a day with very high air pressure to test their underpowered aircraft. Octave Chanute also did the math and concluded that the engine was underpowered and would not be sufficient to get the flyer off the ground. (see Wikipedia) en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Octave_Chanute
@@stevebett4947 Chanute's lift tables were wrong. The Wrights corrected them with their wind tunnel data.
@@neildahlgaard-sigsworth3819 Indeed but Lilienthal made and flew gliders not airplanes. By definition an airplane must take off under it's own power.
Their math was wildly wrong for their full size flyer because nobody had any idea about Reynolds number. But it flew non-the-less.
Seagull : pffffft
In 1910 There was the Paris International Air Navigation Conference that had images and parts from aircraft, including the engine and parts from the Wrights flight. Other images show gliders (Whithead) that later on were suppose (100 years) to show a plane in flight, however a close examination of the image just shows a glider being held up with ropes. There were no other claims at the time and the conference concluded that the Wright Brothers were the first to fly a controlled air plane.
From the get go, the Wrights seemed cursed. No one believed them, those who did stole from them. Here you are over a hundred years later still having to stick up for them. It is ridiculous.
Glenn Curtis was stealing from them and later they joined to form Curtis-Wright.
Doing the figure 8's in France convinced the world their previous claims were correct. The peanut gallery will never be happy.
There are even people who curse the Wrights for hobbling the development of aviation for years - by defending their patents, which took up most of their time.
@@paulwoodman5131 Wright merged with Glenn L. Martin to become Wright-Martin, later called "Wright Aeronautical", and was headed by Frederick B. Wentschler. I seriously doubt that Orville Wright had any say in the matter by the time the Curtiss merger came up. And in any case, by that time, Glen Curtiss was no longer the head of Curtiss. Renschler, by the way, left Curtiss-Wright to found Pratt & Whitney, which became Curtis-Wright's primary competitor for aircraft engines.
Nothing new there then, was it not ever so. When you look at the real inventors,so many had their ideas stolen ,Swan, Tesla in the past and now with China not recognizing the concept of patent rights, nothing is safe. More recently the man who invented the powered Two-Wheel Self Balancing Hoverboard and took out patents to protect his idea, was unsuccessful, due to Chinese manufactures producing replicas in huge numbers.
Did not expect. This was so good, I will watch again later today. Thanks for putting this forth.
I am a private pilot with a commercial certificate. I went to Kitty Hawk museum. It is an emotional experience for someone with knowledge of aerodynamics to look at the walls of the museum which have copies of the original data from their experiments.
Page after page of detailed rows and columns of coefficient of drag and coefficient of lift with other details of EACH of dozens of their self-designed airfoils(no more than 2-3 inches long).....from the orange crate-sized wind tunnel they designed. All this data with mine boggling details just take your breath away. These two guys were brilliant engineers even though they did not have the degrees from a college.
This particular video is your best one yet.
Your talent for relating the technical expertise of an individual craft or an era, how that figures into the history it was involved in and doing so at a level the masses can digest, has been outstanding.
This one was pushed to the top though, because you directly engaged a couple of my other favorite channels and corrected them respectfully, like a man, without any inference or innuendo, literally face to face with facts.
Well done Greg.
It all amazes me and how fast air flight developed. Wars probably had something to do with it. My family had a mountain house in NC on a lake. Got to know our closest neighbors, I was a kid then. The neighbors were Mr. and Mrs. Laird. He went by Mattie Laird. An older couple that seemed to love each other deeply. He once brought me in their house to show me old photographs and articles about his flying. On day Mr. and Mrs. were married, Mr. Laird flew the two of them around the Empire State Building in NYC. Mr. Laird walked with a limp and he told me from a crash. He was building a cabin at other end of our road and I spent some time with him helping. While our doing work on the cabin, he told me stories of his building his aircraft called the Solution and then the Super Solution. He was a very kind man and talked to me like I was smart enough to listen even though I couldn't understand how or why people would race airplanes around a course of beacons.
Wars had EVERYTHING to do with it. I have seen MANY MANY times that "capitalism" (as we practice it) alone (not to begin a political discussion!) tends not to foster "innovation" but rather evolution of existing technologies. War on the other hand demands by its nature "innovation".
@@toddsimpson2351 100% agree!
In war, all stops are pulled. And if one person comes up with an idea, it either wins the war or is balanced very, very quickly!
I've read everything I could find about the Wrights and how they built their airplanes and about their competition. They were definitely the first for all the reasons mentioned in this video. Good job!
I lived in Brazil for two years. I just got used to the repeated claim "santos DuMont was the REAL inventor of the airplane" There's a lot of national pride tied up in this subject, so don't expect anyone to be reasonable about it. On the plus side, I got to see a reproduction of Santos DuMont's first airplane in a museum, so whether he was 'first' or not is less important than the fact that it was super cool.
It is cool, I'll probably cover it in an upcoming video, but it's not the first airplane, not by a long shot.
What I don't get is that they don't seem to talk about his actual accomplishments, which are a big deal. I really want to cover this in the future to set the record straight on this one.
@@GregsAirplanesandAutomobiles yes, its a little odd. They are so focused on proving that they "beat" the americans that they ignore a lot that DuMont did. His damoselle plane was super advanced for its time. (that wasnt his first though). Brazillians basically claim 'first' status by saying kitty hawk doesn't count because of the catapult needed for launch (even though they did launch without a catapult when they had a good headwind), and then they ignore anything else the Wright's did until 1906 when dumont first flew. Basically they treat it like the Wright's attempt in 1903 was all they did, and they did nothing more for 3 years. In 1906 dumont flew 60 meters (but didn't use a catapult like those CHEATERS the Wright's:). One year prior to that the Wright's had flown 24 miles in a circle, a flight lasting almost 40 minutes, but somehow that doesn't count either(see excuse labeled: catapult).
In my opinion the brazillians are actually the MOST reasonable of all the "we were really first" crowd. The distinction of 'unaided launch' is a bit arbitrary, but it is at least a REAL engineering distinction based on what we expect modern airplanes to do (unless they are navy fighter planes, and then catapults are TOTALLY ok). Dumont does have a solid claim to this distinction of first powered flight that launches without aid. While it isn't really true that he was first on that, since the writes HAD done some launches without a catapult even back at kitty hawk, this is not well documented, so there is a pretty good excuse for not accepting it.
Of course on the national pride front I am the real winner. As an american I get to claim that we invented flight. For everyone else who refuses to accept that the Wrights were first, I can still point out that I lived in brazil, home of the guy with the second best claim. So I beat all the rest of you in that department since I finished first AND second place. :)
@@GregsAirplanesandAutomobiles Listing actual accomplishments is hard because you can always find some kind of precedent. The Brazilians who claim that Santos-Dumont contributed more to aviation rarely list his contributions. He did not invent the first man carrying box kite but perhaps he did invent the first man carrying motorized box kite.
He did not invent the dihedral wing but perhaps he did invent the first craft with a dihedral or v-shaped wing that could take off on its own power.
Just for the record, the name of Santos Dumont's airplane is 14 Bis. I guess we Brazilians are really attached to this claim because (unfortunately), we have very few inventors in our history.
Always love your videos. You add insights that other aviation history oversimplifies away. The major points taken here are, 1) Nobody else had come even close to addressing all of the obstacles to flight, and 2) TEN YEARS LATER, nobody, not even those who others claim were first, was yet able to fly for any sensible length of time.
What the Wright Bros. figured out before anyone else was that an aircraft had to be controllable on all three axes -- roll, pitch, and yaw. That is what made powered, controlled heavier-than-air flight possible.
The best Autobiography on the Wright Brother is by David McCullough. Amazing the things that all had to come together and the perseverance of these people to make this happen. Goes into great detail about their lives and character.
I think the best biography of the Wrights is by Harry Combs.
Greg, I stumbled across your upload and I must say how thoroughly enjoyable I found it to be. I've always enjoyed a good debate (and whilst never doubting the Wright brothers were both the first and the real pioneers of aviation) your reasoned thoughts were very compelling. I never realised the regional pressure on the 17th of December was (a) so low and (b) so critical and so that and your other insights made for compelling viewing. Thanks very much !
Greg your videos are some of the best on YT. In addition I love your ability to talk facts and engineering and argue points without getting into silly name calling. Well done.
I don't know why this was on my recomendations but I'm loving every minute of it.
I'm not sure either, I don't understand the youtube algorithm, but either way, I'm glad you are here.
If you read the CONTRADICTIONS that exist in the work of the Wright Bros, your disappointment would be very great.
The Wright brothers' propeller designs were, and remain to this day, some of the most efficient single-row propellers ever devised. They made another break-through when they combine Drzewiecki’s "method of sections" to relate their aerofoil research results, to the momentum disc method of Rankine and Froude. This method is still used to design propellers today! The Wright brothers were truly visionary, and are fully deserving of credit for inventing the airplane.
The Wrights should have patented their propeller.
Anyone thinking others invented the plane is flat out lying. Those boys knew what they needed and came up with the right solutions to make a plane fly. Every plane invented after that first one was simply an improvement in their basic formulas
@@tomw9875 If you research it, they patented EVERYTHING they invented. I found it interesting reading what they came up with. They had help from their sister on that part. She made sure everything they did was properly protected.
@@scottfirman If their propeller design patent was "properly protected" how could everybody else steal it so easily?
@@tomw9875 Patents have limitations. Also, any design changes, no matter how small can be called " New". Look at all the different variations of anything on the market. No one person has exclusive rights to any design. Never had.
Thank you for making this video. It was very informative, and did a good job telling the whole story without cutting things out for argumentative convenience, or for shortening the length of the video.
The best part of the Wright brothers was their wind tunnel and instrumentation work and testing of scale wings and configurations that enabled them to get past Lilienthal's incorrect tables. They were incredible hobbyist engineers who self financed the entire development of controllable and sustainable manned flight.
Lilienthal's tables were completely correct and very accurate. Lilienthal had tested his wings with an aspect ratio of 6:1 and an elliptical planform using a force balance. This was a very realistic AR and planform to test since an actual aircraft would use something like this. The Wrights used the impractical and unrealistic aspect ratio of only 1:1. The error was the Wrights own fault though it came about because of a shoddy translation of Octave Chanute of Lilienthal's work had given to the Wrights. (See Anderson, a History of Aerodynamics). The Wrights never went to any trouble to clear up the discrediting of Lilienthal name (presumably because they were patenting the wing) though they did subtly chide Octave Chanute.
@@WilliamJones-Halibut-vq1fs 10:28
Wow, a thumbs down already! The video isn't even up yet. LOL
So, is this gonna be a rant about the old Otto Liliental vs Wright Brothers feud or is it about Gustav Albin Weisskopf (Whitehead)?
Negative Ghostrider.
@@GregsAirplanesandAutomobiles
LOL XD.
WELL THATS WHAT YOU GET FOR SUCH LITTLE CONTENT! Kidding ofc but more your technical knowledge and extensive research should make my youtube notifaction go from red to golden when you upload.
The same would likely have been true if the preview title was, The Earth is NOT Flat.
Great video Greg! Not only were the Wrights first but you proved that they were the only ones that COULD have flown in 1903 or 1908 for that matter.
1:59 Hey look it’s ancient Florida man. I can see that being a news headline today. “ *Florida man ties himself to kite to try and fly* “
Well, you can do it, it will work. Of course that's the sort of activity that invalidates your life insurance policy.
Imagine that in the same century as the first plane was invented, planes that could fly twice the speed of sound
Imagine that less than 70 years after the first powered flight, men were walking on the moon.
It's been quite a ride. I think about it a lot.
Well done. I came to many of the same conclusions, however, the detail here goes far beyond my high school project of many years ago.
In regards to Lindybeige; I have noted on many of his videos a strong English bias. Like you said; I don't think he truly believes some of these things, however, it is quite distasteful that he should even say it in the first place. Notably his video claiming the MG-42 was uselessly inaccurate, and that the Bren was in every way superior. His final evidence being that the Bren is still in use in some places, and that the MG-42 isn't. Totally failing to mention that the MG-3 is basically the same gun chambered for 7,62x51. I stopped watching his stuff after that blatant misdirection.
That was a very interesting bit about the "mystery engine." I didn't think that the engine was a radial. That was quite a shock. The engineering part of my mind immediate went to work on why they would do a liquid cooled radial. The only thing I can figure is that they were trying to maximize the torque potential from the diesel fuel source. Perhaps to spin an exceptionally large prop per the engine's displacement. The liquid cooling may have been a function of making the engine so compact for a radial. The cylinders, heads, ect. would no doubt be alot thicker than a gasoline powered equivalent, and air cooling may have been insufficient to effectively cool the engine. My best guess anyway.
Thanks. I do enjoy the Lindybeige channel I just keep the British bias in mind. I hadn't seen the Bren gun video, but I would have assumed he would say it was the best machine gun of the war. In the case of "first in flight" he went completely off the deep end with the Ariel Steam Carriage. That was too much for me to not say anything. At least the Pearce craft probably hopped into the air at some point, it might have bounced up a few feet, and an argument can be made for Lilienthal, but saying that the British had anything to do with the invention of the airplane is just beyond silly.
As for that engine, it's odd that it's a liquid cooled radial. If liquid cooling anyway, why not use a more aerodynamic shape? When I get back to the US, I'll get on your discord and ask people there about the "premier" function.
I wonder if the mystery engine was designed with water in mind. The higher drag from taxiing on water in a floatplane or flying boat, combined with the engine's construction needing to be thicker/stronger to handle diesel, could mean that cooling would be an issue in that situation. Still can't think of a good idea to use diesel, however...maybe something to do with potential fuel availability, or a required fuel economy parameter perhaps.
The british have a very strong tendency of bias. Much more so then others and often with a chip on their shoulders, no idea why. That is a crass generalistation, of course, but still the trend is defininately there. It's all more on a pub level then professional.
It's still good entertainment, though
I enjoyed some of his videos until he showed blatantly bias against all things french. Any self respect aspiring historian person that try to cover history should be neutral. No amount of charisma compensates for biased views of history.
@Phil I suspect you'll find that just about every culture has it's biases. Having lived for half my life in each, I would say that both Australia and the US are at least the equal of Lindy in this. It's just harder to see when our own culture has these biases - it's what we grow up with, live with every day, so it's the accepted norm and not really noticed.
At the Franklin institute I saw a display of the Wright brothers instrumentation and controls they had on the Wright flyer. They not only made the first flight but they intended to fly for hours not minutes it was amazing to see the thought and mechanics that went into their plane.
I have listened to your commentary for years and this is a first to see you talk face to face. This is good for me and shows just like the tiny guy with the big voice "Paul Harvey", only in this case someone who's voice matches the face much more closely. Like watching "Gary Moore", for many years thinking he was sort of normal and then seeing him for the first time with a booming voice on this dwarf character not matching the voice whatsoever. So I appreciate seeing you talk because your method of speaking is great.
As Buzz Lightyear said “We’re not flying, we’re falling with style” 🙂
Great video and takedown of the revisionists and deniers. Also, the photo at 30:20 is epic.
Read wikipedia - he's painting flight into a corner to make his "point". As far as I know we still count gliding as flight now and they are aeroplanes which certainly flew prior to the wright brothers.
To pick a side on Whitehead is also pointless - we're more than 100 years on and expert opinion remains divided so to declare one right or wrong is to be choosing a point of view because you want to, not because you care about proof.
What they did was great, but it was building on what came before and denying those contributions is just as daft as denying what the wrights did. Just because you're on the internet doesn't mean you have to think like "them and us". Celebrate the wright brothers and the pioneers before them and think to yourself if you're using language like "takedown" then you've almost certainly lost objectivity.
@@asharak84 The issue isn't "flight" in general. It's heavier than air, powered and controlled flight. So there is no question, that the Wright Brothers were the first.
@@asharak84 He is not "painting flight into a corner to make his point." That's absurd. He is articulating
what the Wright's first flight and subsequent work means for history and for today. Their first flight was the beginning of a way for people to fly from place to place, whereas the others did not lead to anything of
the kind. So if your favorite airline was to give thanks to the pioneers in flight, there is nothing that makes sense about any other the pre-Wright pioneers that didn't fly. Whitehead, well, is an enigma and has a lot of fanboys.
The main point of the video is the discussion about how the Wrights went on to build and design and improve their Flyer... Whitehead had limited resources and talents, and flying or not, is going to always be just a maddening footnote or also-ran who didn't successfully continue whatever his endeavors were in 1901-1905.
Whitehead's contribution to modern aviation and flying are precisely zero without somehow making him an engine manufacturing genius. No sane person can choose his contributions over the Wright's as having a
positive consequence to aviation... because they were virtually unknown to aviators for decades until the early 1930s. The proponents of Whitehead always had to go back into history and pull out tidbits of facts and separate them from fiction. The Wright's proponents merely had a few years or months to back-track to determine that their Kitty Hawk flight had occurred and under what conditions. Injecting Whitehead into the discussion is a revisionist-style smackdown of history as it happened. Are you a revisionist?
@@sparky6086 cool so powered is not a prerequisite for an aeroplane so basically he's taking a narrow definition to make an argument from rather than celebrating all the pioneers of flight. Which was exactly my point.
@@uruiamnot must confess I gave up on the video as a bit of a mess. The title of the video and the opening few minutes illustrated the problem well enough to me. I'm not a revisionist nor do I dispute the wright brothers great contribution and happily give thanks to their efforts. However, again, powered flight is not all aeroplanes. Also since you brought it up - how much they contributed afterwards doesn't matter to who did something first. It's a reason to be thankful and to celebrate them! :) just don't mix it up with invention.
Must admit I wasn't around in the 30s so the theories for both Whitehead and wrights predate me. Nor do I care too much, why not celebrate all who were trying to fly? Flight is awesome. Neither set invented the aeroplane anyway (the concept massively predates them, unpowered gliding also predates them, they may have taken the huge stride forward of pulling off powered flight but while they were indeed inventive, the whole aeroplane is not theirs to take credit for.)
Again, not trying to suggest they were not massive pioneers of flight and am a huge fan of what they accomplished. Just take exception to clickbait inaccurate titles and comments blindly thinking the title is right whatever the content may have been.
Excellent "Technical History of the Wright Brothers' Flights"! You covered a lot of material that other non-technical historians glossed over. I appreciated the "point-counterpoint' at the end. All around well done!
New Zealand may claim Pierce was first to fly
He said the Wright brothers did that. He was delighted they did so and so are we Kiwis. We , so far from the world, are so grateful they did.
It's a pleasure to listen to reasoning of this quality! I particularly agree with the importance of controllability. I have enough trouble with that in the simulated worlds of Kerbal Space Program where there is no wind and atmospheric conditions are entirely predictable. The difficulty in my case is primarily that of making an aircraft which is controllable at an extremely wide range of altitudes and speeds, but that's not the only reason. I've also been struggling with yaw stability, perhaps because I didn't know about adverse yaw. There's a lot of info in the KSP manual and it's augmented by tutorials, but I've yet to see one cover adverse yaw. I haven't seen them all, but the community has a strong tendency to claim all sorts of things will result in a "flat spin" -- a spin around the yaw axis. The prevalance of flat spins in the game probably results from skimping on the vertical stabilizer because it contributes to drag but not lift. When you want to exceed mach 5.5 while there's still some oxygen in the air, you want to minimize drag.
Who cares whether others may have made short hops before the Wright Brothers where their contraptions did get off the ground under their own power? The aeroplane would not be invented until a flying machine could take off under its own power, climb, turn onto a heading, cruise to a destination and land. The Wright Brothers did all of that, based on an orderly program of study, experimentation and progressive steps towards cross-country flight. All of the achievements of the aerospace industry, up to and including the Apollo program and Voyagers 1 and 2, can be traced to their pioneering work.
The Wrights were a lot more impressive than most people realise.
They researched wing profiles using a wind tunnel they built, which in itself is an impressive piece of engineering..
They discovered the yaw induced when initiating a turn with ailerons or wing warping and designed the solution to this critical problem.
They built their own motor using aluminium to make it as light as possible.
Most impressively, they learned to fly an aeroplane before they had finished inventing it.
Why anyone would want to detract from these amazing achievements is incomprehensible.
By the way, how much do you want for that bridge?
I enjoyed reading the David McCullough book on the Wright brothers, and this video serves as a fantastic addendum to that book. Thanks for making this, Greg. Fine work as always.
I like it. You should also address the claims that Alberto Santos-Dumont was the first. I don't know how many videos I have watched on early powered flight in which there's about a brazillion comments on how he beat the Wrights.
Santos Dumont has invented the true airplane with motor!
@@DrWeldonTeixeira See, I told you!
@@DrWeldonTeixeira Imagine not knowing that the Wright Flyer had a motor.
9:10 "He usually survived."
Ok this should be good
Well thought out, well researched and well executed. There was never any doubt in my mind but then again I was educated before the internet came along to cloud peoples minds. I'm also a pilot and know the difference between "controlled heavier than air flight" and falling with style. Cheers to you Greg.
Yes ! Thank you. Ive been a Wright B groupie since about 1958. As a kid I made models & once made a Wright glider from tooth picks & tissue paper. It glided nicely across the room. Still proud of that. The test outdoors, well you can guess. Last flight. Im still in awe of their accomplishments & tenacity. My grandmother from Ohio told me of the first time she saw a plane fly across her farm. It frightened her & the chickens. Anyone who reads all of the material on them & others trying to fly at that time has to come to the same conclusion. Great video! 👍👍👍👍👍👍👍👍👍👍👍👍👍👍👍👍👍👍
Loved the video Greg - very engineer argument friendly! Just a few points - first off, I'm not sure about your comments at the end of the video Lilienthal's influence on the Wrights gliding experiments down a hill vs. tethering. I've read a copy of their complete papers (lovingly gifted to me by a group of friends as a Christmas present at the 100th anniversary of the first flight). Unfortunately, they're buried in a moving box, so I can't check them for you. I think they definitely were copying his "gliding down a hill" approach and I especially remember them noting that nice soft sand dunes would be safer in crashes. I think they had the expected issues with tethering since tethering (a natural idea since they started with kite models with wing twist features) will introduce complications into the control of the craft - especially at manned glider size - since during gusts they would be controlling for both the wind and the asymmetric tether constraints. I also think that luck played a part at Kittyhawk since onshore winds were probably more consistent than Lilienthal's inland winds - especially during midday turbulence. I think the History Guy is plane crazy (he's got lots of historical plane disaster videos), but I appreciate your analysis of the Pearse flyer and its ludicrous wings. I'm designing/building a powered parachute, and really appreciate how your videos get into the nitty gritty details.
I love your ability to stay humble and respectful while making your points. Much more effective overall than accusing others of being fools.
The wing warping was really the kicker. they could turn around 360. only a dirigable or blimp could do that before the Wrights plane.
In one of the French newspapers, after Wilbur's demonstration, the headline was "Nous sommes battus! Nous n'existons pas!" (We're beaten! We don't exist!). I don't know, but I'd love to find out it was the same paper that had a brief passage in English a few days before, "So, basically, they are either fliers or liars."
Just looking at the simple elegance of the Flyer I design makes it clear how far ahead the Wrights were in 1903. Fabricating their own wind tunnel for aerodynamic flight surface testing, as well as their own custom power plant and propeller geometry put them in a league of their own. They had to get to the patent office quickly, because they knew the copycats would come from all corners.
They were correct. The copycats came out of the wood work.
well you made me feel more confident about the wright brothers. Thanks for your efforts and the way you present this without emotion, simply facts. (Joe Friday?).
The Wright brothers did something more important than building an airplane; they invented flying.
Santos Dumont invent the plane.
@@robertocaetano4945 did they fly it?
Brazil, Portugal and even france
Knows more about the avation
Then America and UK.
Santos Dumont was first, save it americans.
@@ordemeprogresso727 ua-cam.com/video/57hXETesOLk/v-deo.html
@@robertocaetano4945 ua-cam.com/video/57hXETesOLk/v-deo.html
My great grandfather invented the airplane in Finland in 1900, he used modified ski's for the propellers and a combustion engine that utilized the expanding gasses created from fermenting salted bottom feeding fish .
The wings were made of bark. The Caribou ate them.
The body was made if ice.
It melted.
FYI: I've seen alot of people on Discord saying they don't care for the Premiere format. I stopped using the option myself. Up to you, but you may want to poll after this, and see if you want to consider dropping that format or keeping it.
Hmm, coming from you, I have to take that very seriously. I'll have to do more research on this.
May I say that I somehow love the age difference between some of us and Greg, as annoying that difference might be.
Premiere is the worst format to actually premiere a video.
I'll discuss the "premier" option on Central's discord. I feel I can get good feedback there as there is a pretty good collection of my target audience there. My thought is that this allows me to have a brief period where I can chat (via typing) live with subscribers, and that's of some value to me. I'm anxious to hear the counter arguments, which may have a lot of merit, and if so, I won't do it anymore.
"Lilienthal" in German means "I need a propeller/engine".
Fortunately, the Wright Brothers had the local lifeguard there to take the photo of that flight. Which happened to be his first photograph. And I believe last photo.
I just realized why the whole 2 guys and a shed paradigm has led to so many inventions... Jamie and Hyneman style arguments between 2 intelligent people with wildly different approaches to everything.
Jamie Hyneman and Adam Savage?
Thank you! I'm so tired of hearing everyone from outside the US trying to take away what the Wright brothers did. It's funny that so many started getting it right(or Wright) after seeing them fly or getting their secrets. Lindybeige really irked me when he tried to give British credit for first flight.
Watched one of Lindy's videos on machine guns comparing the mg 42 And and the British equivalent that actually had the box magazine mounted on top of the contraption..that blocked the operators view..but it was British so it was better...first and last time watching his vids.
@@azariahmaita506 Every person is going to have nationalist beliefs to a degree. They want their country to be #1 every time when good things considered. Look at the Brazilians, always claiming Santos Dumont invented the plane. Their pride and teachings from professors in schools brainwash them. There's no use in debating them, just show them the facts and if they don't budge, move on.
@@azariahmaita506 ... just because the mg42 spat out a lot of lead does not make it the better gun. The bren was built to do a job, and it did it extremely well, right through to the late sixties. A much better offensive weapon.
To be fair, Percy Pilcher had a complete, drawn-up design for a plane that could have worked: a British team recreated it from Pilcher's drawings, started out gliding it, realised that cutouts in the wings didn't help lift and filled them in, as Pilcher probably would have done, and then it glided well. Pilcher had designed and drawn a steam engine and propeller. The team used a modern engine for safety and added extra weight to mimic Pilcher's engine, and they copied his propeller. And it flew at about 20 feet, and was controllable.
But Pilcher died in a glider crash before his plane was built. So he might have had the first viable design for a plane, but he wasn't the first aviator: the Wright brothers were.
Comparing the Bren to the MG 42 does not make sense. The MG 34 or better yet, the FG 42 would be better comparisons. @sue neil The MG 42 is still used today, as an upgraded version, known as the MG 3
I read David McCullough's wonderful book and your video was an excellent supplement. Thank you!
This video inspired me to read David McCullough's book. It's on the way!
Very interesting. And I’m glad you made it clear the difference between Powered Flight and Controlled Falling which is what everyone else was doing. Hats off to you on putting together this video and being forward together your other video peers. There’s a similar situation going on in the guitar world where Fender and Les Paul are seen as the grand inventors of the modern electric guitar, when both had ripped off the idea from Paul Bigsby who’s first attempt has been noted in 1946. But that’s a story for another day.
Thanks for your comment, and especially for watching the video before commenting. I don't know much about Guitars, but it sounds like an interesting bit of history.
I have no idea how any of the channels you've mentioned ended up with those conclusions. But Lindybeige wasn't a surprise for me.
Without the Wright Brothers we would not have what we have today in aviation but lets not forget Matthew B Sellers and what he did for aviation. He made the first powered flight in Kentucky and invented the retractable landing gear. He also built a very advanced wind tunnel to test airfoil designs of which the Wright Brothers had talked with him about. This information was given to me by Matthew's grand children of which I did a documentary on him (AVIATION PIONEER MATTHEW B. SELLERS) by using his lab notes and diary and an interview with his son before he passed away.
Kill Devil Hill to the Moon in One lifetime....still blows me away
Humans can do a lot when working together
Go Ohio!
They can do a helluva lot when they're afraid the Rooskies might get there first and claim it for themselves.
I was watching a mini series about the life of Santos Dumont, (Brazilian made of course). I was amused at how the show dismisses the Wright Brothers as "frauds", and doesn't even mention the fact that most of the French aviation community ended up apologizing to them.
@@felipemoura1920 someone, somewhere, said something 👏. Next tell us how the world is flat
This is the best youtube video on the Wright Brothers I have ever seen. I think your theory that the Wright Brothers were trying to show reporters that they could fly but failed because they didn't have the ideal conditions is correct.
The overall video that shows there are four problems that needed to be solved, no one else solved more than one of the four, at best, while the Wright brothers solved all four. And some problems, like flight control had several different parts, pitch, yaw and roll. Not only did the Wright Brothers figure out how to solve these problems, they were the ones who figured out what problems needed to be solved.
1. Almost no one else realized that the plane would have to be controlled by a pilot. They not only figured that out but also figured out that to do this they would need to control pitch, yaw and roll. Well, again Lilienthal
2. Generate lift. The Wright brothers did this the best by far.
3. Propel the craft. Again, the Wright brothers did this the best by far.
4. How to get training on how to fly was partially solved by Lilienthal, but he did eventually get killed.
Your response to three of my favorite UA-cam commentators was excellent. There must be a guiding force for guys of similar temperament finding the same channels interesting.
You nailed the definition of "flight" better than a law scholar. The definition is widely accepted. The best debates are among those with accepted definitions.
I don't subscribe to any channels. I randomly click on favorite channels to see what is new, so I don't understand how in the heading it says "Premiered 9 hours ago" but there are some comments 23 hours ago. Perhaps someone could explain.
Finial thought, I always learn something from your videos. Thank you.
Thanks Dave.
It seems to be a trend in the internet age. There is somebody out there to tell you that every freaking thing you've heard is all wrong and that they have the true story.
Yup.
Greg, you’re videos are amazing. Thank you for this.
Quality info. I've always known the 'story' and seen a few documentaries back in the day but this was very informative and not boring/slow. Good work.
My grandmother was from Dayton. She actually saw the Wright Bros fly. Neat.
wow--how old is she now ?
@@MrDaiseymay DEAD
28:06 It always rains at Le Mans.
Well researched and done very well this is worth watching / listening again and again
Thanks for this clarification of the matter. Very interesting and as always very nice to listen and watch.
9:03 'so when his lack of controllability failed him, he *usually* survived'. Lol.
As a kid, one of the first books I read at 6 or 7 was the Landmark book about Wrights. I know there's always artistic license, but what I got out of it was they were portrayed about the same as you have done here. Guys who got the combination right because they worked at it. To me, others at the time seemed to have been stuck in a pompous loop, well intentioned as they might have been. The Wright's story is one that needed to be told as you have.
9:14 "when his lack of controllability failed him, he usually survived". Agreed. Not surviving was pretty rare. In fact, I believe it only happened to him once.
All inventions are accredited to those who actually make it work
All inventions are accredited to whoever has the most-expensive lawyers and marketing departments that best influence the media, courts, govt and public. Ask Swan and Bell why the public thinks their working inventions were done by Edison. If your idea holds, then the Chinese are the inventors of everything, not thieves, for not only making all things work but cheap too.
I think you're basically saying the same thing but picking a slightly different part of the development chain where 'accreditation', 'invention' or 'patent' stages does not necessarily go to the person originating the idea, theory or object but those who take it a bit further on to profitable success or fame. You used the word 'market' so you cross paths with my 'marketing'. This is, of course, populist cynicism I'm promoting where I also do know a great proportion of patents are held by the actual originator. There are higher proportions for those patents that never turn into anything as they are vanity or over-enthusiastic applications. There are many applications put in by patent lawyers to surround their clients' first submissions so as to cover and protect all imagined, close variants to keep competitors' lawyers further away. And then there's the occasional patent office clerk delaying the progress of an application crossing their desk while they tell a friend or client to copy it and get an application in ahead of it.
Often credit goes to the inventor of the most practical or best working invention rather than to the original inventor, but not always the case. Antonio Meucci he filed a caveat (an announcement of an invention) for his design of a talking telegraph. Due to hardships, Meucci could not renew his caveat. His role in the invention of the telephone was overlooked until the United States House of Representatives passed a Resolution on June 11, 2002, honoring Meucci’s contributions and work. He had made a usable device! $$$ wins
Who downvoted this video? What content in this video earns a downvote? Absurd.
Excellent video as usual Greg. Took me a long time to get around to watching this one, but I finally did and wasn't disappointed.
Not going to lie, I had a very different mental image of you and was quite surprised by the face reveal.
A most informative video as always though. I am happy that UA-camrs try and correct one another, even if they make mistakes. My standards for subscribed channels are high and unfortunately Lindybeige fell from that with the MG42 Vs Bren video, the few I have watched since seemed exceedingly rambly and long without substance for me. And other channels are simply too click baity and superficial.
A great video to watch while eating lunch. Learned much more about the Wright brothers and their efforts than I have learned before. 😀
I'm actually going to go watch that now. I have no illusions towards thinking that WW2 German engineering was as magical as many claim, but the MG42 is pretty important as a mechanical basis or most post war designs
@@williamforbes6919 The MG 42 is not a perfect weapon by any means, but Lindybeige made a bunch of assertions with some real dubious and laughable justifications for his opinions.
The History Guy's channel is actually quite good. Plus he's a wonderful storyteller.
"My standards for subscribed channels are high and unfortunately Lindybeige fell from that with the MG42 Vs Bren video"
Likewise. That video was so badly researched that it calls into question the quality of research for all of his other videos.
@@SpaceGhost1701 It's a channel that sells the personality, first, and whatever incidental factual content that goes with it second. Don't get me wrong...I could listen to Greg for hours...and have! But if I want quirky Brits, and I do enjoy British humor, there are myriad better sources 😉
I almost cried when I heard that you watched History Guy, Real Engineering, and Lindybeige.
The Wrights solved the flight issue with discoveries and inventions that truly conquered and understood the aeronautical science while the others did not. We know this because nearly all of the implementations and "eureka" moments that made the Wright Flyer -- wing and canard shape, the use of ailerons, elevators, rudders, propeller shape and design, wing warping, air pressure tables, wing lift to weight requirements etc -- all of that is still the heart and soul of flying in even today. All the same principles apply. The Wrights not only flew first, but they flew "the right way" first which is even more amazing. You'd think by now our technology would have designed a new way to fly much different and better, but no it still comes down to thrust, pitch, yaw, ailerons, and wing shape. 2022 aeronautics is still intrinsically tied to what the Wright Brothers discovered was the "secret sauce". Nobody else trying to fly in the late 1800s and early 1900s was even in the same galaxy as far as figuring it all out. Most were on proverbial wild goose chases and dead-end designs that were so far off from what would consistently work that without the Wrights showing the way the world may not have flown for another 25 years.
Nice to see the man behind the camera. This is my favourite channel on UA-cam. Really well researched and informative.
I didn't see anything about Whitehead. Interesting fact. The Wrights went to check out the plane my ancestors built, the Boland Brothers flyer to see if they thought it infringed on their patents. When they saw it was being turned by "jib sheet rudders" they decided it did not infringe on their patents so they didn't sue. The Wright brothers were quite litigious.
Great video! I have now read 2 biographies on the the Wright Brothers. The Wright Brothers by David McCullough (good, easy to read) and The Bishop's Boys by Tom Crouch (great but exhaustive). Your video is perfectly in line with both books. You are the first to suggest that they caught a lucky break with low density altitude, however. They chose Kitty Hawk for steady winds, gentle hills, and soft sand for the inevitable hard landing. Since their primary living was from the bicycle business, they built up inventory from January to April, then sold bicycles from April to September. Their down time was from the beginning of September until it got too cold to work outside. So they caught a lucky break on December 17, 1903 when it all came together for them, including cold, dense air. Keep up the good work!
Hi Graf, my preferred book on the subject is Kill Devil Hill by Harry Combs of Combs FBO fame.
Greg,
Outstanding video, you did this piece of history a great justice. I also frequent and appreciate the three youtube channels you referenced. I hope that the channels respond to your invitation to dialogue. The big lesson I came away with from your video regards the technical aspects of history. Many feel that referencing original sources guarentees the most accurate history possible. Your presentation very clearly demonstrates the importance of including both the historical context of the times AND the technical context of the events relative to the science of the achievement.
I'm very glad we have you as historian, pilot, and technology expert. I've been checking your channel every week and now I know what you have been doing since your last video. Thank you for all your hours of research.
Thanks Mark. My channel is quite small, I doubt the big channels I mentioned will comment, and I'll probably have to sell my bridge to someone else.
Greg,
I don’t need a bridge at the moment, but I’ll let you know if that changes !
Keep up the great work.
@Greg's Airplanes and Automobiles - finally. As a cyclist (transportation) since 1958 and a watcher of birds (especially thermal riders like the redtail hawk) I have always had a specific empathy for the brothers. Thank you.
For a pair of bicycle mechanics those guys were absolutely brilliant. Also I think the people that think Pearce flew first should build a replica of his airplane and fly it themselves. It would immediately put to rest all of their claims.
you do a great summary of this story. I did a lot of research in this area, as an amateur pilot and areonautical engineer, and you are so accurate.
Richard Pearce said the Wright brothers were the first to fly. Crash landing onto the top of a 20 foot Windbreak hedge, thousands of miles of which make Tamuka farmable, does not prove he flew there in controlled flight. Remember the Wright Flyer was wrecked by a gust soon after it's wonderful debue. Pearce followed the unfolding story of flight and admired all those who dreamed as he did.